Yes, it might be true; as you say, English is not my first language.
"...but only that many developers seem disinterested in soliciting user feedback."
Is that your point, then? Then I should ask: why should they be interested in any way? Developing open source code is, well, developing open source code. Everything else is accesory, so sometimes it will appear, and sometimes, it won't. Sometimes developers will ask for user feedback, sometimes they won't, just like they sometimes they will use freshmeat and sometimes not, or sometimes they will develop GUI-based apps and sometimes a daemon. And then we return to the starting point. My experience is that developers don't tend to be disinteresed in my feedback, but even if they were, it would be no surprise to me, since I know they have no need for it, if they don't want to, and paying me attention is totally their choice, not mine (and thus, begging for their attention puts me in the position of being a beggar so it's in my own interest being intelligent about how to deal with such a situation).
"There's a pretty hostile tone to your language there."
I don't think so. At least I *know* I was not trying to be hostile. I only was *surprised*, since your proposition (asking for attention from the developers and being surprised if you don't get it) really makes no sense to me.
"You said offering feedback was offering "_NOTHING_" (emphasis yours)."
OK, I'll rewrite it: you are offering nothing interesting to those developers at that time. No surprise you don't get their attention if you are offering nothing interesting to them. And why it is not interesting? Because is their attribution, not yours (nor mine) to stablish if/why/how your feedback becomes interesting. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.
"I stand by my position, that most users can't offer anything but feedback and an increased user-base"
Then I stand by my position that such an offer can be interesting for some people and won't be interesting for some others.
"If developers want to see their projects succeed, I believe that they should welcome these two contributions"
That's the most surprising assertion, and probably the one most repeated from people with no relatioship with the development world. And I can say is completly, terribly wrong (maybe such a misconception can be attributed to the fact you -and most users, are not a developer?).
I really think there's an "intoxication" from the privative software world here. For a privative software project to succeed, surely there must be a great userbase paying their license fees in order for the developers to become millionaires, since that's the objective of privative software (develop software for the money). But then, you should redefine what succeeding means for an open software project in order to see if your previous assertion makes any sense.
Some OS projects will be started in the aim for their developers to learn some new techniques (thus the "open source" thingie: that way other _knowledgeable developers_ can directly or indirectly criticise their efforts). Will the project fail if the developers involved indeed learn such new techniques, even if no non-knowledgeable people uses their software? I bet not. Some others will be focused on some itching on the developers side itself (remember "the cathedral and the bazaar" main assertion? Open source tends to start as an scratching an itch effort). If the developers develop a software that resolves their problem at hand, even if nobody else uses it, will you consider it a failed project? The project may be focused from its very beginings on a very narrow niche while, maybe, with some efforts can make their target audience wider. Will it be surprising if you (or me, or somebody else) approach them telling so, and they just answer "it's not my current interest to develop those changes you propose but, since it's open source you can do it yourself, if
"Are you a begger if you go to a public park or a museum?"
Of course not! if only because it's paid from your taxes. You become a beggar when you *beg*. It's that simple.
"and those who use it (open source software) are not beggers"
Of course not (again)! *Those* that use open source software and then go to their authors asking for more (like "I beg you to develop this cute feature" or "I beg you to develop your software in this specific manner" or even "I beg you to pay attention to me, because I'm important, I'm your userbase") *are* beggars.
"Trying to shame people for using public/free software is not good for the open-source movement or community"
I really think there's a big misunderstanding here. I feel you think I'm trying to ashame you somehow. Nothing farer from reality: I'm just showing facts. *If* (please, note the if) you beg someone for something, *then* you become a beggar. Nothing ashaming here, just a fact. And for a beggar to have some success about her beggings, better she does it the smartest way.
"But that was essentially the response you had just given me"
How it this possible. I ask you to re-read my posts coldly looking for rude attitude from my part (even less directed to you).
"...and I hadn't even asked you for anything."
To that I can only say being replied on a public thread is the "risk" you accept when posting to a public forum. You showed us a situation and provided us with your opinion about it. Then I tried to explain what's the origin for such a situation, and provided some hints to avoid it. That's called dialog.
"You're making a big stink about how I'm a begger"
Though some beggars do stink, you shouldn't take for a bad word the one that only relates to a situation (as in "beggar"=="the one who begs"). On the other hand, maybe you should reconsider how can be taken as a rude word a situation that comes, most of the time, from circumnstances of life well beyond our reach.
"I have no resources to do so other than to offer feedback from an end-user standpoint, and developers seem generally disinterested in that."
I have to repeat then, that for the most part my only contribution to open source projects of my interest is only feedback (if you think about it a bit it couldn't be otherwise, anyway) and I can't confirm your point of view about developers being disinteresed, much less rude.
Since everything else being equal, our different feedback only can come from: a) The projects you tend to approach are dealed by developers disinteresed about their users' opinions while I tend to approach projects where developers are more engaged with their userbase (lucky me) b) There's something different in the way you and me approach developers so they tend not to be interested about your opinions while they tend to be interested about mines.
"That's great advice for rich people. Unfortunately, I have to work for a living, and don't have time to run around organizing fundraisers. I don't have money to pay programmers to write what I want. And again, I'm not a programmer."
You have not the time, you have not the money, you have not the interest.
There's a name for a such a person: it's called a "beggar". Since (in software-related terms) you are a beggar, I think you'd better adjust your expectations to those of a beggar.
"I'm sorry if most open-source developers don't understand this or don't like it..."
I'm sorry if most open-source userbase don't understand their status equals to that of a beggar. In my life I found beggars that became angry when I didn't accomplish what they did ask to me... well, such things happen.
"Seriously. That's all we have to offer."
Yes, of course. That I understand. What *you* don't seem to understand is how much, that you have to offer will "buy" from them, an how will it deppend on your manners to offer to them, who will you offer to, and even the time of the day.
"You damned leech! We allow you to use our software, and we owe you NOTHING!!! I'm not even going to listen to what you have to say! How dare you give feedback without PAYING ME!!!"
Is just quite curious how many times I myself offered exactly what you say (just "increased user-base and feedback"), and *never* had such an answer. Maybe it's the way I ask for it (you know, begging is quite an art). Maybe the problem is not about not offering them money (while it always help), maybe the problem is that some people even won't take the time to offer *sensible* feedback and just will tell the developers (the people that spend quite a lot of time thinking about the software and developing it) how they should do their work after, maybe, twenty seconds thinking about it. Try thinking about it from *their* situation. Haven't you ever be in the situation of somebody without the slightest idea about your work (maybe your boss, maybe a client, maybe an older) just telling you how it should be done? Did it influence you to be in the best of your humours and just became open to whatever he said? Well, the answer is surely a big "NO" but then, why you expect others reacting in a way you wouldn't?
Open software projects will offer to you exactly what a privative software will offer and then some more. But they offering more doesn't mean you *deserve* anything more. Just take it into consideration next time you approach an open source project's user list and maybe you will recieve a more positive feedback. If it works for me, I can't see why it shouldn't work for you too.
"Under the GPL, i can leech off of the hard work of others all day, and I can be happy to benefit from great software that I didn't do a thing to create."
Of course you can. And even you can *manage* to get more than that, if you are clever and lucky. You just don't *expect* to get more than that.
Oh, yes! They like it A LOT. Have CentOS the strength to go corporate? No.
Who uses, then, CentOS? 1/ Wannabies that can't pay for Red Hat. What they will do when they go corporate and will need/want certifications? (for their knowledge, for the hardware or the third party software they use)? They'll go Red Hat. 2/ People that don't want to pay for Red Hat. Since they really don't want to pay, how many money is Red Hat directly loosing by them using CentOS? Zero. And what they'll use if someday they need certifications? Red Hat.
People who use CentOS are not using Red Hat, but they are not using SuSE or Debian or Ubuntu either, and that's a great advantage. The same is valid with Fedora too, of course.
Why do you think Microsoft or AutoDesk tolerate home "piracy", or Oracle distributes free versions of their databases? The first dose is for free, dude!
"If you want that, fix it yourself!" Most of us, however, simply aren't programmers. What do you want us to do?"
There's -oh, surprise! a third way. You know, I don't know so much about plumbing, so when I have to resolve some plumbing related problem, I call... the plumber!
He does his job, I pay the bill and everything is fine and the sun shines again.
Repeat after me: you can pay for a developer.
So you go to a distribution list and say "I'd want this to be done", and the developers tell you "we don't like it, we won't do it, but you can do it yourself if so you like". Have you ever tried find a hacker nearby you that would do it for a prize? Did you try to handle a few bucks to people of the list to see if that makes their opinion change? No? Well, it might be too expensive... Have to tried to organize a foundrising campaign? Maybe there's some more people looking for that very same feature/fix the same bug, and few bucks from everyone can make a pretty good sum. Have you ever tried it?
So you go to some people that don't owe nothing to you; that *allow* you to use what they built with their time, effort and knowledge, offering them _NOTHING_ and are you really surprised that sometimes they won't pay their attention to your requests???
"the OSS/Linux Nazis are going to haveto learn to comprimise, because they're always a fucking problem whenever someone ports overto Linux."
How is it? Do they *pay* marketing campaigns to FUD the porting efforts?
Or, better, is it that they won't pay for such a port and, maybe, they will be vocal about their reasons not to do it?
But then to the best of my knowledge that's almost all they can do, and I was under the impression that this is a free market and free speech country so I can't really see nothing bad about their doings.
"NVIDIA and ATI drivers? "Proprietary, to the stake!" You know, because its just so much worsethan having no drivers at all."
To the stake? To the best of my knowledge -again, every major Linux distributions comes with some kind of helper in order to install those drivers. And they don't include them within the distribution, you know way? BECAUSE NEITHER NVIDIA NOR ATI ALLOW THEM TO DO SO.
"The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS"
The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS ON THEIR OWN TERMS. What a pity I am running open source because I DISLIKE THEIR TERMS (among other things). It is not as if Linus Torvalds would say "No, no, it comes from NVidia, or Microsoft, or AutoDesk, so I don't want to know anything about them". All and every GPLed software from ANY company will be gladly accepted. Do they really want to getalong with OSS? Well, they won't have to scale unsurmountable mountains, they won't have to give me sand from the hidden side of the Moon, they won't have to make promise to go to church every Sunday... they only have to produce GPL software. I mustn't have to be such a difficult enterprise, after all even communists, hippies and pimply basement aficionados seem to be able to do it!
"the language was only deciphered at the beginning of the 20thC (...) ranging from business accounts to high literature"
Huh! I can figure that there must be some babylonian over there quite quite angry when somebody actually deciphers his home rent bill... with 3000 year overdue charges!
"The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force it down our throats as usual."
Oh, well... I didn't know RMS (or the FSF or the SPI for that matter) were pushing governments so only choice to license the software you wrote was the GPLv3. It's good to know, thanks!...or is it that RMS it trying to offer a well thought license so you can -IF YOU WANT TO, avoid the software you write to be involved in some situations you really didn't want to?
For the hardware manufacturers: they can ALWAYS use non-GPLv3 based software, don't they? For the software developers: they can ALWAYS develop software and distribute it under a non-GPLv3 software, don't they?
So what's exactly what RMS is trying to force down our throats?
"spread spectrum [...] It's really security by obscurity."
No, it isn't.
A "security by obscurity" device is one that you can't tell how is it built and still use it as a "security device".
For instance "rot 13" is a "security by obscurity" device. Once you tell a cypher is made out "rotting13" a clear token, you are gone.
On the other hand, "Caesar's cypher" is not a "security by obscurity" device. Caesar's cypher, you know, is the general procedure which rot 13 is an special case. You can tell "this is cyphered using Caesar's algorithym", and the secret message is still safe (of course, Caesar's cypher is a very, very "bland" one, but the principle applies).
More on the same: Enigma coding is not a "security by obscurity" device; the allies could put their hands in one of such devices, know everything about how they worked and still the secret messages would still be "secret". Trully enough, once you know how enigma works *and* the specific "key" applied to one messege, you are done, but having the key secret is part of the algorithm, not the implementation.
Exactly in the same way, you can have the exact algorithm, implementation methodology, and even the device itself in your hands, and still spread spectrum is safe*1, unless you know the specific pseudo-alleatory chain used, and the current position within the pseudo-alleatory output chain.
Of course, either for the Caesar's algorythm, enigma or spread spectrum, one thing is "safe" and a very different one is "safe enough", just the same a 16 bit assymetrical encryption is computationally "safe" (it costs less to cypher than to brute-force decypher, and knowing the used algorithm doesn't decypher the message all by itself) but not "safe enough" for current standards (because the "breaking" costs are well within the abilities of the potential breaker).
"What about Microsoft's responsibility toward their users?"
Yes, what about? You have what's Microsoft's responsibility towards their users right there, in their products' CLUF. And amounts to a great heap of nothing.
"What about their responsibility towards society?"
Yes, what about? I bet Microsoft (as any other company in the world) will state their objectives in their foundation papers, and I bet nothing about "responsibility towards society" will be there too.
"They must obey fair competition practices, at the least"
Why they should? A company is a company, not a person. Only people can have something named "ethics". A company, at most, should obbey *legal* bounds, and taking into account companies' complete lacking of ethics, just to the point it makes economical sense to them. That's why is so important on an 'a priori' basis having laws that will insure that abbiding to law will make economical sense to a company. Currently big corporations have enough money (aka power) to insure law will abid to their interests, not the other way around (remember: a company should obbey *legal* bounds, not ethics).
"And their users should expect and demand responsibility..."
Ah... now you are talking (partially at least) about *people*, not corporations. Yes, people *do* have ethics, and probably yes, they *should* demand this or that but then, what if they *don't* demand it?
"They do have the responsibility to act honestly."
How can this be possible? Such a command is neither in that company's foundation papers nor in the agreement they reach with their users. They have the implicit responsibility to act *legally*, which may or may not be the same as honestly.
"instead of assuming and acting as if their only responsibility was toward their shareholders, to profit by whatever means"
Well, that's the whole and only "reason d'etre" for a company. That's our legal system; it gets to a point in the USA (so I've been said) that people in charge of such a company can be even legally liable if "profit by whatever means" goes down just to the second place. Maybe you would want (so would I) to be changed what the legal foundation for corporations are, but even then, since corporations are not people and so, they don't hold ethics, even in that New Arcadia, corporations still would hold *only* to their legal bounds.
"As if shareholders don't care what kind of company they invest in, as long as it profits. Some don't, but others do hold ethics..."
Isn't a motto for "Corporate America" that people vote with their money? Well, it seems that people already have voted with their money what they want from a corporation and that means *profit*. As soon as people put their money in "corporations with a(n ethic) style" you will see how fast they change. But in the meanwhile...
"How can you tell whether nobody will use a new standard if it is significantly better than the old one?"
Because it _cant't_ be significantly better no matter what.
Why do you thing there's still a "tab war" (or a "vim vs. emacs war", for that matter)?
It's because there's no "significantly better" alternative (at least not _within_ then proposed choices).
What (maybe) would be significantly better would be the "standardization by itself". But then, each party will insist on standardize on *his* side, not the other, and this is a sure path for no standardization at all.
Hell, even when there is a really obviously better choice (metric vs. imperial) still there is a terribly strong resistance to standardization against customs.
"but I do think that people should be at least mirroring their drives"
But people don't seem to think the same. And its their data, after all.
"I have heard too many people complain about losing something important because of hard drive failure."
Did they complain to the point to ask a hardware vendor for a RAID1 off-the-shelf (of course, they wouldn't ask "give me a RAID1", but they'd answer positively to a hardware vendor advertising "no more data loss! our patented 'doubledisk' technology secures your data; only tagged 70$ over our standard prize")? My perception (and obviously, that from the computer vendors) is that users do complain for data loss, as they complain from virus, spam, piracy... but they won't put neither a nickel nor a minute where their complains are.
"I could see them doing this on purpose to say, "See Linux DOESN'T belong on the desktop. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of behind the scenes stuff.""
Of course yes!
After all, it is not as if they'd mind people saying "See Microsoft products (ie: Microsoft 2003 Data Center Edition) DOESN'T belong to the data center or your IT backbones. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of non-important secretary-related stuff".
"Sorry, but where has Microsoft said their OS is great for routers?"
Microsoft has said that their OS is great for *any* kind of embebebed devices (a subclass of them being routers).
Microsoft has said (to the point to kill you bored) that Linux is not only underperforming; it is more expensive, and even communist and antiamerican, due to the GPL.
So you have on one hand: The PR impact The (probably) money savings (after all, one expects that if something can be done on a Microsoft platform, there in Redmond must be the one able to do it) due to gratis licenses and in-house experts The PR impact (again)
On the other hand: An underperforming Expensive (even to those that can't benefit from free licenses and in-house top-rate expertise) Antiamerican Communist solution.
"Depends on how much money you lose if your web site is down becuase of lack af a serious professional solution, as you call it."
I don't know about any "non professional solution" going down when deployed and on hands of a knowledgeable systems administrator.
On the other hand, I see a full lot of "professional solutions" going down real hard on a daily basis due to substandard sysadmins (heck! substandard seems to be the standard nowadays).
Curiously enough, corporations still happen to prefer "professional solutions" to "knowledgeable sysadmins".
"Let's get beyond the simple binary 'all closed source is bad for customers/users, all open source is good'"
And your end point is that once we go beyond those simple binary assements, if the core developers of a project "resign" due to varied number of reasons, the open source clients are in a worst case scenario no worse that their close source counterparts, and given some not so improbable conditions, they might be better to much better.
Now, I think this clarifies the waters quite a lot.
"I wonder if Linus could stop them from putting out something called Linux because he owns the trademark"
Well, we all know this news is a fake by now. Anyway, that's a good question.
My bet is the answer would be "no" anyway.
The Linux foundation clearly states that they release licenses for the Linux trademark on a "one payment" basis. I bet SCO did make such payment time ago (back on the Caldera/United Linux days), so they are already licensors for that trademark.
Of course, unfair usage can be claimed, but I bet Linus would have a hard day to demonstrate such unfair usage as long as SCO (or any other licensed company) actually releases a Linux distribution under that name and limits the "Linux TM" brand to their Linux-related bussiness. What else does the company (like sueing everybody and his cat) doesn't have too much to do with the very specific Linux (TM) usage (unless, of course, the litigation were based on the very usage of the LinuxTM, which is not the case here).
"What are they supposed to do, take random days off?"
Random? Why random?
No: they can publish on a very precise date: ie. the day it's done.
On the other hand,
"So creating the patches on a schedule is just software engineering"
Where, oh, where did I say "on schedule" (or *you*, for that matter)? Let's recall it:
"Microsoft has to use a production cycle..."
So "use a production cycle" means "creating patches on schedule" now? No: "use a production cycle" means, oh wonders, use a "production cycle", so some steps are guaranteed to happen one after the other once certain conditions are met. It can include specific dates... or not.
So Microsoft's current publication procedures include a step in terms like "publicly release on next month's first thursday, once the bugfix is ready"*1. What's the technical need for this? What's the technical difference between previous sentence and this one: "publicly release next day at 12:00UTC, once the bugfix is ready"?
Noone, as, by the way, clearly demonstrates that exactly the same technical achievements can be met by releaseing "out of fixed dates", just like anybody else in the software industry is currently doing, and even Microsoft was doing till some a year ago (of course, that doesn't mean that those other companies don't have in place their very specific production cycles too).
*1 And even then, it's not so simple. Some USA government agencies and VIP clients get those patches on a privileged basis, some time before all the other people.
"Microsoft has to use a production cycle because that's the only way they can create and deploy the ungodly number of patches that are necessary to fix all the security holes they've managed to create."
The problem is not here. Nobody doubts that.
The problem is between the "need to use a production cycle" and the "need to publish only on certain dates" relationship. The problem is that there's no such a relationship.
The decision about releasing bugfixes on a given day of the month is not due to engineering practices nor has nothing to do with the bugfix production cycle. It's nothing but a marketing decision.
Yes. And that's ten times better because that means ten times less downtime. You go from an expected limit of 10 units/time downtime period to 1 unit/time downtime period.
Slashdot Mirror
"In any event, you're missing my point entirely"
Yes, it might be true; as you say, English is not my first language.
"...but only that many developers seem disinterested in soliciting user feedback."
Is that your point, then? Then I should ask: why should they be interested in any way? Developing open source code is, well, developing open source code. Everything else is accesory, so sometimes it will appear, and sometimes, it won't. Sometimes developers will ask for user feedback, sometimes they won't, just like they sometimes they will use freshmeat and sometimes not, or sometimes they will develop GUI-based apps and sometimes a daemon. And then we return to the starting point. My experience is that developers don't tend to be disinteresed in my feedback, but even if they were, it would be no surprise to me, since I know they have no need for it, if they don't want to, and paying me attention is totally their choice, not mine (and thus, begging for their attention puts me in the position of being a beggar so it's in my own interest being intelligent about how to deal with such a situation).
"There's a pretty hostile tone to your language there."
I don't think so. At least I *know* I was not trying to be hostile. I only was *surprised*, since your proposition (asking for attention from the developers and being surprised if you don't get it) really makes no sense to me.
"You said offering feedback was offering "_NOTHING_" (emphasis yours)."
OK, I'll rewrite it: you are offering nothing interesting to those developers at that time. No surprise you don't get their attention if you are offering nothing interesting to them. And why it is not interesting? Because is their attribution, not yours (nor mine) to stablish if/why/how your feedback becomes interesting. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.
"I stand by my position, that most users can't offer anything but feedback and an increased user-base"
Then I stand by my position that such an offer can be interesting for some people and won't be interesting for some others.
"If developers want to see their projects succeed, I believe that they should welcome these two contributions"
That's the most surprising assertion, and probably the one most repeated from people with no relatioship with the development world. And I can say is completly, terribly wrong (maybe such a misconception can be attributed to the fact you -and most users, are not a developer?).
I really think there's an "intoxication" from the privative software world here. For a privative software project to succeed, surely there must be a great userbase paying their license fees in order for the developers to become millionaires, since that's the objective of privative software (develop software for the money). But then, you should redefine what succeeding means for an open software project in order to see if your previous assertion makes any sense.
Some OS projects will be started in the aim for their developers to learn some new techniques (thus the "open source" thingie: that way other _knowledgeable developers_ can directly or indirectly criticise their efforts). Will the project fail if the developers involved indeed learn such new techniques, even if no non-knowledgeable people uses their software? I bet not. Some others will be focused on some itching on the developers side itself (remember "the cathedral and the bazaar" main assertion? Open source tends to start as an scratching an itch effort). If the developers develop a software that resolves their problem at hand, even if nobody else uses it, will you consider it a failed project? The project may be focused from its very beginings on a very narrow niche while, maybe, with some efforts can make their target audience wider. Will it be surprising if you (or me, or somebody else) approach them telling so, and they just answer "it's not my current interest to develop those changes you propose but, since it's open source you can do it yourself, if
"Are you a begger if you go to a public park or a museum?"
Of course not! if only because it's paid from your taxes. You become a beggar when you *beg*. It's that simple.
"and those who use it (open source software) are not beggers"
Of course not (again)! *Those* that use open source software and then go to their authors asking for more (like "I beg you to develop this cute feature" or "I beg you to develop your software in this specific manner" or even "I beg you to pay attention to me, because I'm important, I'm your userbase") *are* beggars.
"Trying to shame people for using public/free software is not good for the open-source movement or community"
I really think there's a big misunderstanding here. I feel you think I'm trying to ashame you somehow. Nothing farer from reality: I'm just showing facts. *If* (please, note the if) you beg someone for something, *then* you become a beggar. Nothing ashaming here, just a fact. And for a beggar to have some success about her beggings, better she does it the smartest way.
"But that was essentially the response you had just given me"
How it this possible. I ask you to re-read my posts coldly looking for rude attitude from my part (even less directed to you).
"...and I hadn't even asked you for anything."
To that I can only say being replied on a public thread is the "risk" you accept when posting to a public forum. You showed us a situation and provided us with your opinion about it. Then I tried to explain what's the origin for such a situation, and provided some hints to avoid it. That's called dialog.
"You're making a big stink about how I'm a begger"
Though some beggars do stink, you shouldn't take for a bad word the one that only relates to a situation (as in "beggar"=="the one who begs"). On the other hand, maybe you should reconsider how can be taken as a rude word a situation that comes, most of the time, from circumnstances of life well beyond our reach.
"I have no resources to do so other than to offer feedback from an end-user standpoint, and developers seem generally disinterested in that."
I have to repeat then, that for the most part my only contribution to open source projects of my interest is only feedback (if you think about it a bit it couldn't be otherwise, anyway) and I can't confirm your point of view about developers being disinteresed, much less rude.
Since everything else being equal, our different feedback only can come from:
a) The projects you tend to approach are dealed by developers disinteresed about their users' opinions while I tend to approach projects where developers are more engaged with their userbase (lucky me)
b) There's something different in the way you and me approach developers so they tend not to be interested about your opinions while they tend to be interested about mines.
Think about that.
"That's great advice for rich people. Unfortunately, I have to work for a living, and don't have time to run around organizing fundraisers. I don't have money to pay programmers to write what I want. And again, I'm not a programmer."
You have not the time, you have not the money, you have not the interest.
There's a name for a such a person: it's called a "beggar". Since (in software-related terms) you are a beggar, I think you'd better adjust your expectations to those of a beggar.
"I'm sorry if most open-source developers don't understand this or don't like it..."
I'm sorry if most open-source userbase don't understand their status equals to that of a beggar. In my life I found beggars that became angry when I didn't accomplish what they did ask to me... well, such things happen.
"Seriously. That's all we have to offer."
Yes, of course. That I understand. What *you* don't seem to understand is how much, that you have to offer will "buy" from them, an how will it deppend on your manners to offer to them, who will you offer to, and even the time of the day.
"You damned leech! We allow you to use our software, and we owe you NOTHING!!! I'm not even going to listen to what you have to say! How dare you give feedback without PAYING ME!!!"
Is just quite curious how many times I myself offered exactly what you say (just "increased user-base and feedback"), and *never* had such an answer. Maybe it's the way I ask for it (you know, begging is quite an art). Maybe the problem is not about not offering them money (while it always help), maybe the problem is that some people even won't take the time to offer *sensible* feedback and just will tell the developers (the people that spend quite a lot of time thinking about the software and developing it) how they should do their work after, maybe, twenty seconds thinking about it. Try thinking about it from *their* situation. Haven't you ever be in the situation of somebody without the slightest idea about your work (maybe your boss, maybe a client, maybe an older) just telling you how it should be done? Did it influence you to be in the best of your humours and just became open to whatever he said? Well, the answer is surely a big "NO" but then, why you expect others reacting in a way you wouldn't?
Open software projects will offer to you exactly what a privative software will offer and then some more. But they offering more doesn't mean you *deserve* anything more. Just take it into consideration next time you approach an open source project's user list and maybe you will recieve a more positive feedback. If it works for me, I can't see why it shouldn't work for you too.
"Under the GPL, i can leech off of the hard work of others all day, and I can be happy to benefit from great software that I didn't do a thing to create."
Of course you can. And even you can *manage* to get more than that, if you are clever and lucky. You just don't *expect* to get more than that.
"Redhat probably doesn't like it"
Oh, yes! They like it A LOT. Have CentOS the strength to go corporate? No.
Who uses, then, CentOS?
1/ Wannabies that can't pay for Red Hat. What they will do when they go corporate and will need/want certifications? (for their knowledge, for the hardware or the third party software they use)? They'll go Red Hat.
2/ People that don't want to pay for Red Hat. Since they really don't want to pay, how many money is Red Hat directly loosing by them using CentOS? Zero. And what they'll use if someday they need certifications? Red Hat.
People who use CentOS are not using Red Hat, but they are not using SuSE or Debian or Ubuntu either, and that's a great advantage. The same is valid with Fedora too, of course.
Why do you think Microsoft or AutoDesk tolerate home "piracy", or Oracle distributes free versions of their databases? The first dose is for free, dude!
"Therefore, claiming that protocol X is bound to platform Y is silly, to say the least."
NetBEUI.
Silly me...
"If you want that, fix it yourself!" Most of us, however, simply aren't programmers. What do you want us to do?"
There's -oh, surprise! a third way. You know, I don't know so much about plumbing, so when I have to resolve some plumbing related problem, I call... the plumber!
He does his job, I pay the bill and everything is fine and the sun shines again.
Repeat after me: you can pay for a developer.
So you go to a distribution list and say "I'd want this to be done", and the developers tell you "we don't like it, we won't do it, but you can do it yourself if so you like". Have you ever tried find a hacker nearby you that would do it for a prize? Did you try to handle a few bucks to people of the list to see if that makes their opinion change? No? Well, it might be too expensive... Have to tried to organize a foundrising campaign? Maybe there's some more people looking for that very same feature/fix the same bug, and few bucks from everyone can make a pretty good sum. Have you ever tried it?
So you go to some people that don't owe nothing to you; that *allow* you to use what they built with their time, effort and knowledge, offering them _NOTHING_ and are you really surprised that sometimes they won't pay their attention to your requests???
"the OSS/Linux Nazis are going to haveto learn to comprimise, because they're always a fucking problem whenever someone ports overto Linux."
How is it? Do they *pay* marketing campaigns to FUD the porting efforts?
Or, better, is it that they won't pay for such a port and, maybe, they will be vocal about their reasons not to do it?
But then to the best of my knowledge that's almost all they can do, and I was under the impression that this is a free market and free speech country so I can't really see nothing bad about their doings.
"NVIDIA and ATI drivers? "Proprietary, to the stake!" You know, because its just so much worsethan having no drivers at all."
To the stake? To the best of my knowledge -again, every major Linux distributions comes with some kind of helper in order to install those drivers. And they don't include them within the distribution, you know way? BECAUSE NEITHER NVIDIA NOR ATI ALLOW THEM TO DO SO.
"The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS"
The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS ON THEIR OWN TERMS. What a pity I am running open source because I DISLIKE THEIR TERMS (among other things). It is not as if Linus Torvalds would say "No, no, it comes from NVidia, or Microsoft, or AutoDesk, so I don't want to know anything about them". All and every GPLed software from ANY company will be gladly accepted. Do they really want to getalong with OSS? Well, they won't have to scale unsurmountable mountains, they won't have to give me sand from the hidden side of the Moon, they won't have to make promise to go to church every Sunday... they only have to produce GPL software. I mustn't have to be such a difficult enterprise, after all even communists, hippies and pimply basement aficionados seem to be able to do it!
"Cave paintings have lasted for tens of thousands of years!"
You really must have taken this wrong!
My archbishop swears the world is only 6010 years old!
"the language was only deciphered at the beginning of the 20thC (...) ranging from business accounts to high literature"
Huh! I can figure that there must be some babylonian over there quite quite angry when somebody actually deciphers his home rent bill... with 3000 year overdue charges!
"The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force it down our throats as usual."
...or is it that RMS it trying to offer a well thought license so you can -IF YOU WANT TO, avoid the software you write to be involved in some situations you really didn't want to?
Oh, well... I didn't know RMS (or the FSF or the SPI for that matter) were pushing governments so only choice to license the software you wrote was the GPLv3. It's good to know, thanks!
For the hardware manufacturers: they can ALWAYS use non-GPLv3 based software, don't they?
For the software developers: they can ALWAYS develop software and distribute it under a non-GPLv3 software, don't they?
So what's exactly what RMS is trying to force down our throats?
And now, GPLv3 hopes to return sanity to marketplace.
That's OK on my book.
"i'd say their just as bad as one another to maintain."
And I'd say you probably haven't had the privilege of maintaining neither of them.
Anyway, you can ask, say, Patrick Volkerding which indeed used to maintain both of them about his informed opinion.
"spread spectrum [...] It's really security by obscurity."
No, it isn't.
A "security by obscurity" device is one that you can't tell how is it built and still use it as a "security device".
For instance "rot 13" is a "security by obscurity" device. Once you tell a cypher is made out "rotting13" a clear token, you are gone.
On the other hand, "Caesar's cypher" is not a "security by obscurity" device. Caesar's cypher, you know, is the general procedure which rot 13 is an special case. You can tell "this is cyphered using Caesar's algorithym", and the secret message is still safe (of course, Caesar's cypher is a very, very "bland" one, but the principle applies).
More on the same: Enigma coding is not a "security by obscurity" device; the allies could put their hands in one of such devices, know everything about how they worked and still the secret messages would still be "secret". Trully enough, once you know how enigma works *and* the specific "key" applied to one messege, you are done, but having the key secret is part of the algorithm, not the implementation.
Exactly in the same way, you can have the exact algorithm, implementation methodology, and even the device itself in your hands, and still spread spectrum is safe*1, unless you know the specific pseudo-alleatory chain used, and the current position within the pseudo-alleatory output chain.
Of course, either for the Caesar's algorythm, enigma or spread spectrum, one thing is "safe" and a very different one is "safe enough", just the same a 16 bit assymetrical encryption is computationally "safe" (it costs less to cypher than to brute-force decypher, and knowing the used algorithm doesn't decypher the message all by itself) but not "safe enough" for current standards (because the "breaking" costs are well within the abilities of the potential breaker).
"What about Microsoft's responsibility toward their users?"
Yes, what about? You have what's Microsoft's responsibility towards their users right there, in their products' CLUF. And amounts to a great heap of nothing.
"What about their responsibility towards society?"
Yes, what about? I bet Microsoft (as any other company in the world) will state their objectives in their foundation papers, and I bet nothing about "responsibility towards society" will be there too.
"They must obey fair competition practices, at the least"
Why they should? A company is a company, not a person. Only people can have something named "ethics". A company, at most, should obbey *legal* bounds, and taking into account companies' complete lacking of ethics, just to the point it makes economical sense to them. That's why is so important on an 'a priori' basis having laws that will insure that abbiding to law will make economical sense to a company. Currently big corporations have enough money (aka power) to insure law will abid to their interests, not the other way around (remember: a company should obbey *legal* bounds, not ethics).
"And their users should expect and demand responsibility..."
Ah... now you are talking (partially at least) about *people*, not corporations. Yes, people *do* have ethics, and probably yes, they *should* demand this or that but then, what if they *don't* demand it?
"They do have the responsibility to act honestly."
How can this be possible? Such a command is neither in that company's foundation papers nor in the agreement they reach with their users. They have the implicit responsibility to act *legally*, which may or may not be the same as honestly.
"instead of assuming and acting as if their only responsibility was toward their shareholders, to profit by whatever means"
Well, that's the whole and only "reason d'etre" for a company. That's our legal system; it gets to a point in the USA (so I've been said) that people in charge of such a company can be even legally liable if "profit by whatever means" goes down just to the second place. Maybe you would want (so would I) to be changed what the legal foundation for corporations are, but even then, since corporations are not people and so, they don't hold ethics, even in that New Arcadia, corporations still would hold *only* to their legal bounds.
"As if shareholders don't care what kind of company they invest in, as long as it profits. Some don't, but others do hold ethics..."
Isn't a motto for "Corporate America" that people vote with their money? Well, it seems that people already have voted with their money what they want from a corporation and that means *profit*. As soon as people put their money in "corporations with a(n ethic) style" you will see how fast they change. But in the meanwhile...
"All tabs and spaces do is make it more pleasant to see the code."
Unless you program Python, of course...
"How can you tell whether nobody will use a new standard if it is significantly better than the old one?"
Because it _cant't_ be significantly better no matter what.
Why do you thing there's still a "tab war" (or a "vim vs. emacs war", for that matter)?
It's because there's no "significantly better" alternative (at least not _within_ then proposed choices).
What (maybe) would be significantly better would be the "standardization by itself". But then, each party will insist on standardize on *his* side, not the other, and this is a sure path for no standardization at all.
Hell, even when there is a really obviously better choice (metric vs. imperial) still there is a terribly strong resistance to standardization against customs.
"but I do think that people should be at least mirroring their drives"
But people don't seem to think the same. And its their data, after all.
"I have heard too many people complain about losing something important because of hard drive failure."
Did they complain to the point to ask a hardware vendor for a RAID1 off-the-shelf (of course, they wouldn't ask "give me a RAID1", but they'd answer positively to a hardware vendor advertising "no more data loss! our patented 'doubledisk' technology secures your data; only tagged 70$ over our standard prize")? My perception (and obviously, that from the computer vendors) is that users do complain for data loss, as they complain from virus, spam, piracy... but they won't put neither a nickel nor a minute where their complains are.
"I could see them doing this on purpose to say, "See Linux DOESN'T belong on the desktop. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of behind the scenes stuff.""
Of course yes!
After all, it is not as if they'd mind people saying "See Microsoft products (ie: Microsoft 2003 Data Center Edition) DOESN'T belong to the data center or your IT backbones. It's only good for doing SOME TYPES of non-important secretary-related stuff".
"Sorry, but where has Microsoft said their OS is great for routers?"
Microsoft has said that their OS is great for *any* kind of embebebed devices (a subclass of them being routers).
Microsoft has said (to the point to kill you bored) that Linux is not only underperforming; it is more expensive, and even communist and antiamerican, due to the GPL.
So you have on one hand:
The PR impact
The (probably) money savings (after all, one expects that if something can be done on a Microsoft platform, there in Redmond must be the one able to do it) due to gratis licenses and in-house experts
The PR impact (again)
On the other hand:
An underperforming
Expensive (even to those that can't benefit from free licenses and in-house top-rate expertise)
Antiamerican
Communist solution.
And they still choose the second one.
Food for mind.
"Depends on how much money you lose if your web site is down becuase of lack af a serious professional solution, as you call it."
I don't know about any "non professional solution" going down when deployed and on hands of a knowledgeable systems administrator.
On the other hand, I see a full lot of "professional solutions" going down real hard on a daily basis due to substandard sysadmins (heck! substandard seems to be the standard nowadays).
Curiously enough, corporations still happen to prefer "professional solutions" to "knowledgeable sysadmins".
"Let's get beyond the simple binary 'all closed source is bad for customers/users, all open source is good'"
And your end point is that once we go beyond those simple binary assements, if the core developers of a project "resign" due to varied number of reasons, the open source clients are in a worst case scenario no worse that their close source counterparts, and given some not so improbable conditions, they might be better to much better.
Now, I think this clarifies the waters quite a lot.
"I wonder if Linus could stop them from putting out something called Linux because he owns the trademark"
Well, we all know this news is a fake by now. Anyway, that's a good question.
My bet is the answer would be "no" anyway.
The Linux foundation clearly states that they release licenses for the Linux trademark on a "one payment" basis. I bet SCO did make such payment time ago (back on the Caldera/United Linux days), so they are already licensors for that trademark.
Of course, unfair usage can be claimed, but I bet Linus would have a hard day to demonstrate such unfair usage as long as SCO (or any other licensed company) actually releases a Linux distribution under that name and limits the "Linux TM" brand to their Linux-related bussiness. What else does the company (like sueing everybody and his cat) doesn't have too much to do with the very specific Linux (TM) usage (unless, of course, the litigation were based on the very usage of the LinuxTM, which is not the case here).
"What are they supposed to do, take random days off?"
Random? Why random?
No: they can publish on a very precise date: ie. the day it's done.
On the other hand,
"So creating the patches on a schedule is just software engineering"
Where, oh, where did I say "on schedule" (or *you*, for that matter)? Let's recall it:
"Microsoft has to use a production cycle..."
So "use a production cycle" means "creating patches on schedule" now?
No: "use a production cycle" means, oh wonders, use a "production cycle", so some steps are guaranteed to happen one after the other once certain conditions are met. It can include specific dates... or not.
So Microsoft's current publication procedures include a step in terms like "publicly release on next month's first thursday, once the bugfix is ready"*1. What's the technical need for this? What's the technical difference between previous sentence and this one: "publicly release next day at 12:00UTC, once the bugfix is ready"?
Noone, as, by the way, clearly demonstrates that exactly the same technical achievements can be met by releaseing "out of fixed dates", just like anybody else in the software industry is currently doing, and even Microsoft was doing till some a year ago (of course, that doesn't mean that those other companies don't have in place their very specific production cycles too).
*1 And even then, it's not so simple. Some USA government agencies and VIP clients get those patches on a privileged basis, some time before all the other people.
"Microsoft has to use a production cycle because that's the only way they can create and deploy the ungodly number of patches that are necessary to fix all the security holes they've managed to create."
The problem is not here. Nobody doubts that.
The problem is between the "need to use a production cycle" and the "need to publish only on certain dates" relationship. The problem is that there's no such a relationship.
The decision about releasing bugfixes on a given day of the month is not due to engineering practices nor has nothing to do with the bugfix production cycle. It's nothing but a marketing decision.
"So, it's 0.09009% more uptime."
Yes. And that's ten times better because that means ten times less downtime. You go from an expected limit of 10 units/time downtime period to 1 unit/time downtime period.